Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
MSNBC 20
MSNBCW 20
CSPAN 9
FBC 7
CSPAN2 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
CNBC 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 92
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 92 (some duplicates have been removed)
that is a loss in trying to create a bipartisan foreign policy in washington and the reduction was probably one of the most important congressional initiatives that we have ever seen. the idea that you could take that kind of money from the defense budget that didn't make the military very happy and apply it to demilitarizing the strategic arsenal of the former soviet union was extremely important. we go from bush to clinton, clinton didn't want to deal with foreign policy like so many presidents they felt they were elected to do domestic things. clinton had no background in foreign policy, no interest in the foreign policy. people say they went to georgetown, the school really wasn't good enough as i am concerned. i hope i am not offending anyone in georgetown she put together a security team all of them were gone within a year or two for the most part when you look at christopher and the cia was a very peculiar appointment. he did something that needs to be corrected. he was in the foreign policy bureaucracy as i am concerned he brought to the right wing and abolishing the arms control and di
the fears of progressives as obama conducts a foreign policy that looks like bush's. i am not pro-drone. i am pro-destroying al qaeda. i am pro-protecting america. i am pro-a better drone program and i am pro ending this war as soon as we can but i fear that's a long way away. as douglas macarthur said, only the dead have seen the end of war, and we may now be in a permanent war. okay. that does it for "the cycle." martin, it's yours. >> passionate patriotism from toure. thank you. it's monday, february 11th, and a pope has abdicated, the president prepares to face the nation, but republicans are still stuck on benghazi. >> the president's state of the union address. could be the president's last best chance to address a captive audience. >> do republicans have the leverage now? >> none of the things i ran on as part of the tea party have been fixed. >> i don't want to live with this sequester. >> how do we get growth with jobs? >> no confirmation without information. >> are you going to support him for defense secretary? >> i will see the rest of the answers to his questions but certainly
, immigration, the environment, everything basically, but his lead on foreign policy is a staggering 14 points. what makes republicans think this is a good thing to have a fight over? >> right. up until recently everybody said, look, politics stops at the water's edge, and that hasn't been the case for the last couple years with this republican party. but it turns out that it wasn't necessarily that both parties followed that axiom because they were being nice about it. it turns out that it's incredibly bad politics to challenge your sitting president overseas. and, you know, this benghazi thing has not worked out for the republican party at all. they tried effectively to make it the biggest issue of the presidential campaign in the last several weeks, and people just didn't buy into it. what they saw is a tragedy. something that was -- if it could have been prevented, it should have been prevented, but they weren't going to start pointing blame and ask for the resignations of hillary clinton and throw barack obama out of office. >> right. >> and the idea that you'd be able to stop future cia
and didn't because he was so, quote, strong on foreign policy. >> you say, quote. that's why i voted for him. i trusted george bush to make hard, tough decisions that i thought john kerry might waver on. >> thank you. which is why i don't think obama will have any problem with this. >> i think it helps him. >> he'll look like a strong, and just like he did a year ago, just like when he killed bin laden, he looks incredibly strong on foreign policy. and this will not provide a weak spot for him in the long run. >> mika, really quickly, i agree with you there. i don't think there's going to be a political fallout from it. >> yeah. >> i think one of the things that disturbs me so much is the fact that americans are not any more concerned about other americans being able to be targeted and killed without any due process. and i'll say it again because i can hear people saying, well, why didn't you say that about george w. bush? i did. i did on padilla. i did when there were americans whose constitutional rights were being eviscerated by what was going on during the bush era. i spoke out t
.c., foreign policy, the sad truth about benghazi. the cia director john brennan and his support for drone bombings to kill american traitors and we might get into waterboarding as well. first up the automatic sequester spending cuts set to kick in in three weeks. outgoing secretary of defense leon pan et offered these dire warning today before congress. take a listen. >> frankly one of the greatest security risks we are now facing as a nation that, this budget uncertainty could prompt the most significant readiness -- military readiness crisis in more than a decade. >> all right. but there are ways to responsibly trim the pentagon's budget and still protect national security. former defense undersecretary michelle flournoy, if identify got that right -- michelle flournoy, i beg your pardon, she penned an op-ed in the wall street journal this week. joining us is aforementioned michele flournoy. michelle, or undersecretary, which ever you prefer -- >> michelle, please. >> i thought your piece was terrific. sequester or not, defense department is going to lose 10% of its budget and you think
order, and morality. it should be rejected as a tool of foreign policy." the church committee report came out, said that. gerald ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. the select committees on intelligence were formed in the house and the senate to exert oversight over the cia. since the armed services committees who had been supposedly overseeing them had fallen down on the job, actually, they'd never seen all that interested in that part of the job in the first place. and that is how we got to a place where these senators today could question this cia director nominee under the expectation that he has to answer to them. and they need to be apprised of what the cia is doing every step of the way. and targeted killing by the cia is not just something they're allowed to do quietly on their own or in private with the white house without at least having to explain. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. and ensuring that the congress has the documents and information it needs to conduct robust oversight is centra
. a reporter for foreign policy said it looks like the iranian dumped some rudimentary flight controls and an ejection sheet into a shell molded into what they thought were stealthy angles. a defense analyst looks like it might make noise and vibrate if you put a quarter in it. president ahmadinejad said it carries a message of peace, friendship, and brotherhood. our military achievements, he said, do not pose a threat to anyone. seems like in this particular case, it doesn't pose a threat to anyone which leads us to our next story about military achievements that do indeed pose a threat. there is word tonight that the united states facing drastic defense cuts could be falling behind some of its potential enemies. national security correspondent injurjennifer griffin looks at t prospect. >> reporter: for the first time in two years, the pentagon said it can't afford to keep two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf. the u.s.s. truman would have left today from norfolk, virginia. defense secretary leon panetta blamed the cut back on is he quest ration saying if congress can't rewrite th
when he's had a stellar record on foreign policy. >> but you know these babbitts that sit in the audience for people like him. these bergers. you can see them from the rotary club, very polite. i can hear the audience, excellent point. well put, vice president. this second rate -- they all agree, they wouldn't have approved these people. wyoming doesn't deserve this guy. it's a beautiful state. >> i think that maybe dick cheney has a case of drone envy here. >> yeah. >> really? >> well, i mean -- >> go on, sir. >> okay. he's the guy who is used to being attacked by the aclu. >> i see. >> you see what i'm saying? actually president obama has got some weapons that dick cheney wouldn't mind having had, and the president -- >> this is getting way too -- pull back. >> and the president has been unafraid to use them. >> right. >> serious point -- >> i get -- >> the republicans spent a generation unhorsing democrats because democrats were, quote, weak on defense. >> they weren't willing to pull the trigger. >> they weren't willing to pull the trigger. barack obama, to the dismay
is that they are two policies now. they were two managements of foreign policy. one low level, and a different one strategic going out of the white house, and many thinks the white house had at the time objectives not really informed at the security council on the one hand or the state department. lou: let me ask you just straight up, yes or no. were you disappointed or disgusted at the conduct of the president of the united states and the secretary of state? >> i think that by trying to put this on the video, this was a diversion from what was happening on the ground, and they tried not to inform the american public before the elections. i think that's the con consensuf most of us, those of us who know what the jihadists were trying to do. lou: thank you for being with us. more on the rising tensionings in -- tensions in the middle east and president obama's response with the a-team next. the northeast hit by another big storm. in fact, a record storm. the blizzard update is next. bush whacked or hacked, however you want to say it, the bush family photos and secret e-mails of the former first fam
season for arming the rebels in syria. more than 60,000 people have died, but that others on the foreign policy team pushed back, and the president made a decision not to. >> yeah. let me just say on this one i may be inclined toward the president. i'm not certain who those -- who would get those weapons. i don't want to fwet into too much detail. i'm also on the intelligence committee, but i'm -- i am not certain that those weapons wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, and that's a real problem we've had in syria. maybe more should be done earlier on to get better control of the rebels, but now to me there's too many unsavory pro-islamist elements among those rebels, so i am not certain that they should be given weapons. that's a tough call, and i'm not close enough to it on the ground, but from what i do know, i'm very leary about giving any weapons because they could end up in the hands of islamists. >> congressman peter king, it's great to have your perspective, and thank you and good luck in the storm for you and your constitch wednesday. thank you for being with us today. >> thank yo
, had choice words for the president's foreign policy team. i'm not sure i agree with that. in "the new york times," a great must-read, quietly killing a consumer watchdog. it's how the republicans are just doing everything they can not to have the consumer financial protection bureau that was created by elizabeth warren under president obama actually function because it would keep them, quite frankly, from being able to get their money from all their donors on wall street. and they do not want to lose the people who helped them out. so they want to make sure that the consumer suffers so that they can gain politically. it's a good one. take a look at it. coming up -- >> we're also going to talk about nancy pelosi saying we don't have a spending problem, and the problem with medicare is not medicare. we've got a lot to talk about straight ahead. >> gail collins of "the new york times" joins us straight ahead. >> she's got a great column. >> i love it. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely,
? >> what will he not talk about? >> well, they think that there will not be much talk about foreign policy. you threw me a curve there, maureen. that was good. i think the fact is that they feel that they have a good policy, he's not going to talk about the stories that you just ran about chuck hagel and about brennan at cia, and he is not going to talk about benghazi. he is going to say that the fate of the owe that the state of the union is strong, and he is going to point to his accomplishments. he feels very confident. based on the election results, he is going to do everything he can to make himself and the democratic party look good. >> perhaps, speaking to the state of the republican party, florida senator marco rubio, whose national profile is certainly being elevated, he is giving the republican response, not just in english but in spanish. what ask that say to you? >> that's the wave of the future. obviously they read the election figures. 71% of the voters who were hispanic voted democratic. they realize they're in electoral doomsday if they can't get into that con stitt you the
the weapons. >> you delivered a major foreign policy today at the heritage foundation. well thought out speech on national security issues. why now? why did you decide to do it? because you knew that it was going to jump-start the speculation you want to establish foreign policy credentials for a possible run in 2016. >> you know, i just joined the foreign relations committee. i wanted to spell out what my mission is for the foreign policy. it's a unique position and one that needs to be expressed. we often have two polar extremes and really just one, for the most part, that we're everywhere you will a of the time. the other extreme is that it would be nowhere any of the time and that would be isolationism. there's a realistic approach somewhere in the middle and it would involve containment. i talked a lot about george kennan who may be the most famous diplomats, thought to be one of the chief architects of containment and i think there's some of ththat may apply to rad islam. it's an thet cal to freedom and has to be opposed at various parts around the world but i don't think the standard ap
on foreign policy. when his father ron paul ran for president he got in trouble with a lot of republicans because his foreign policy was anti-war and isolationist which a lot of republicans didn't like. rand paul is departing from that, trying to make himself more acceptable, i think, to mainstream republicans. >> so you think we'll have another paul on the ballot in 2016. is rand paul remotely electable, nia-malika henderson? >> i'm not really sure. >> nationally. >> if you look at what happens, the republicans as much as we can talk about how they have moved to the right, the last candidates that have come out of these primaries have been moderates. you think about mitt romney, john mccain. is there going to be a third party, the tea party that breaks away from the gop. we'll have to wait and see. >> thanks to both of you. good to see you on this sunday. >> thank you. >> just ahead, top of the hour. the big dig has a new meaning in boston. digging out from more than three feet of snow, but it won't be in time for school tomorrow. good news force kids. bad news for parent. plus, californ
against foreign persons, i think, is troubling from a moral, ethical, and policy point of view. but i don't subscribe to the fact that it's illegal under u.s. law. and that's the law that the president is bound by the constitution to follow. my focus has been primarily, and i'm not saying it's a good program. i'm just saying that i think it's a moral policy question rather than a legal one primarily for the president. i focus primarily on the targeted killing of american citizens, which does bring into play the united states constitution and the rule of law in the united states. and i'm very troubled about that aspect of it. >> can you help us understand how this official program of targeted killing works? >> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in w
for both the law, for our foreign policy, and for civilians in a killing program that we should be doubly concerned in getting that information out there, so that we make sure that we don't make those mistakes or we correct them when we do. >> let's close with a brief discussion on the issue of surveillance and eavesdropping. on the 31st of december, the president extended this controversial wiretapping act until 2017. the f.i.s.a. act? >> foreign intelligence rveiance act. >> rig. are you both troubled by the seeming lack of oversight for this extension of surveillance and wiretapping of suspected terrorists in this country? do you think there's a real danger here? >> i think there's a tremendous danger. and i think, you know there has been a codification of the expansion of power under george bush. and so any time that congress or through policies that are happening now that we're institutionalizing, codifying, making hard in our infrastructure things at we lirally thkable n or 11 years ago is of tremendous concern to us. it shows our slippage. and we don't always realize that that's wh
and it is the lasting legacy of foreign policy. >> and that leave mes with the question because of so many ideological differences of president obama and president bush, but not on this. it suggests possibilities that presidents are just presidents and they always expand their kind of war powers which is one possibility, and the other is that the president nose something that i don't know about what constitutes threats to the national security, and the third is that well, on this one question, this president is just as hawk ish as george w. bush and any way to adjudicate the possibilities of what war means to the obama administration? >> well, i think that, i think that is absolutely right, it has been a continuation of the bush administration policies, and yes, administrations always try to push the outer bounds of the authority. but one thank is clear is that the laws of war have not changed even if the practice has changed. there are really three reasons that a country can, a state can use force outside of its borders. one, if it is the victim of an armed attack and second if the u.n. security coun
troubled by it, as someone who's served in the white house on foreign policy. what bothered you the most about the way it was put together? >> let's separate it into two sets of issues. one is the criteria for when the united states does say a drone attack and the other is the process by which we make the specific decision. the criteria are simply not sustainable. for example, there's three. the first with is that it has to be imminent, the idea that the terrorists planning an attack are about to launch an attack. we don't know that. so you can't meet the first threshold you set. we don't wait till it's imminent because we never know. and that's clear if you look at all the drone strikes we've done, by the time someone has made the career choice to be a terrorist, we decide that they qualify as a potential target. indeed we go beyond that. so-called signature strikes, you target people who appear to be doing the sorts of things that terrorists tend to do. we set up criteria that we ourselves do not meet. we then say it has to be the capture is infeasible. you don't want to have to captur
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no. >> my reference to the -- >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like the answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today. >> well, let the record show you refuse to answer that question. >> ana, the viewers may not know the history between hagel and mccain. they were close friends in 2000. not so in 2008 when it was clear that hagel's wife was supporting obama and not mccain. was that personal? >> i don't think so at all. anybody who ever saw mccain grill donald rumsfield knows that this is john mccain. this is his job. they are there to advise and consent, not to rubber stamp. if they are not going to get the scrutiny and tough questions now, then when? >> why was he so much tougher on chuck hagel than john kerry? >> because there are so many inconsistenci
in the war on terror and is this legal architecture going to guide american foreign policy in perpetuity because there will always, i guarantee you, thomas, somewhere in the world be someone somewhere who is plotting to do something terrible to the united states, always. that is going to be absolutely the case. and if that is all it takes for us to be in a state of war, we will be in a state of war forever. >> isn't that the new ghormal of what we've evolved to in a country where we have been in a perpetual state of war for a dozen years now? >> yes, but i don't think it should be. i don't think the mere presence of somebody plotting to do something terrible to the united states should be the bar that triggers us being in a state of war. you know, england got hit, spain got hit by terrorist associated with al qaeda. that doesn't mean spain is in a permanent state of war. it doesn't mean england is in a permanent state of war. there are nations that have been targeted by truly genuinely mallef lent forces and it doesn't mean they reorder their thinking, their strategy, their legal archite
to president obama's foreign policy in as far as being able to take out terrorist where is he doesn't have to send u.s. troops and john brennan was an architect of that strategy. of course, controversial because there are innocent civilians who can get caught up in that as "the new york times" written about earlier this week, as well. that's obviously where some of this is coming from but the question americans face is would you rather have american troops and boots on the ground in yemen and pakistan or the unmanned drones taking on this responsibility? >> thank you very much. i appreciate you changing conversations in the middle of everything. we'll have plenty of time i'm sure to talk about chuck hagel. meantime, let's take the audience to the senate hearing and senator dianne feinstein. >> because of the added importance of having steady leadership at an organization that conducts most of its business outside of the public arena. intelligence is critical to the successful draw down in afghanistan, to the brutal war going on within's syria's borders, across north africa where the attack
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> my -- >> yes or no. >> my reference to -- >> are you answering the question, senator hagel? the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like to answer whether you were right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> well, let the record show that you refuse to answer that question. now please go ahead. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was senator john mccain grilling his old friend chuck hagel last week at hagel's confirmation hearing. the senate armed services committee was supposed to vote today on hagel's nomination to head the pentagon, but that vote has been postponed after republicans said they hadn't received sufficient information about hagel's financial records and specifically about any payments he's received from foreign sources. that's an odd hurdle given that republicans never seem concerned about foreign revenue sources when it came to nominees from
finney, a columnist with the hill, and michael o'hanlon, senior foreign policy fellows at the brookings institution. welcome to you both. mike, if i can start with you. in addition to the many other responsibilities that you yourself carry, you're also a member of the cia's external advisory board. are you satisfied with john brennan's responses, particularly in relation to the drone program? >> well, you know, martin, i do think we need checks and balances in our system, and i think groping towards the right way to handle a question of whether it be drones or some other kind of use of force, the broader question here is using force in a country where we haven't before or against a person we haven't before, possibly an american citizen when you have got this very broad authorization on the use of force against an enemy that's very generally defined going back to the 2001 legislation. so it's bigger than any one technology that might be used. but, no, i'm not totally comfortable yet, martin. i still wonder if we need some kind of internal executive branch but totally independent check. i
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 92 (some duplicates have been removed)